The phenomenon of rising neo-socialism in Latin America is a world-wide concern, which even affects Indonesia.

There are generally considered to be two strains of neo-socialism in Latin America. On the one side, are the governments of Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, which have been labeled as 'pragmatic', 'rational' and 'modern'. On the other side are the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina, which are considered to be 'demagogic', 'nationalist', and 'populist'.

At the same time, there is also another strain of neo-socialism, which is more extreme and complex due to its dependence on the location in which it is found. FR Gallegos (2008), for example, stated that neo-socialism in Latin America is coloured by its institutional inheritance of neo-liberalism, influenced by the position of social movements and the history of the growth of progressive political parties in the countries in which it is flourishing. There are therefore more than two strains of neo-socialism. They do, however, have the same aim, which is to fight against the neo-liberal agenda by strengthening the countries and improving social conditions.

After Hugo Chavez's election in Venezuela in 1998, there was a shift to the left in Latin American politics with the exception of a few countries, including Mexico and Colombia. However, there has been much debate on whether this shift is uniform or whether there are two variants: left democratic and right populist. The idea that the shift to the left in Latin American politics takes more than two forms, as Gallegos believes, has also been debated.

It certainly seems clear that the situation in Latin America is much more complex than the clear cut debates regarding left wing politics in Europe in the 1970s. These debates saw only two trends in left wing politics: progressive (socialist) and reactionary (social democratic).

Latin America's theory of social democracy is completely different to that of Europe. Traditionally, Latin American countries on the left of the political spectrum have been revolutionary, anti-capitalist and sometimes anti-democratic. While they were in power, these governments had the opportunity to change the rules, sometimes overhauling them completely. This was achieved by the complete modification of the capitalist system and bourgeois democracy. The ideas of Godesberg (New Labour) or the Moncloa Pact, which date back to a time when social democracy was more moderate and gave opportunities to the middle classes, are rarely heard in Latin America.

Proceeding without an ideology

This is more than an interesting political and academic issue. At present, many left wing Latin American governments are proceeding without any ideology or political theory. There appears to be no correlation between political practice and terminology. Nueva Sociedad's 2008 special edition was entitled 'How left is Latin America?” There are issues, which will need to be considered in order to understand the paradigm shift in Latin American politics and to enable us to answer the following question: Is the left in Latin America capable of fulfilling its promises and how sustainable is it?

In the 1980s Latin America lapsed into what is known as the lost decade, with low economic growth, increased poverty and the worst income distribution in the world. After a relatively high level of economic development in the first half of the 1990s, under the direction and control of the World Bank and the IMF, there was another lost half-decade at the end of the 1990s. The reason behind this was neo-liberal structural adjustment (Washington Consensus), which was unable to provide promised improvements. Argentina, the model for neo-liberal reform, fell into serious crisis in 2001.

As a consequence of the above, voters turned away from governments and traditional political parties and elected left wing candidates. Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa are examples of this. Meanwhile, countries with a democratic tradition, including those which have strong left wing parties, such as Brazil, Chile and Argentina, are facing paradigm changes within their political systems.

Nevertheless, the extent to which this movement affects governments is also important. This is the reason for the pragmatic attitude of several neo-socialist governments in Latin America. Another explanation for this is the fact that left wing groups in Latin America have been turning to social democracy as a means to win over the middle classes. Therefore, this movement is also associated with the political right.

Three tendencies

There are various discourses and political practices within the governments of Latin America. There are at least three main tendencies. The first is an increase in a country's economic activity. The second is that a country prioritises social policies as part of its development distribution policy. The third is the diversification of a country's political relationships and foreign economic policy. Meanwhile, monetary and financial stability, rules of free trade and integration in the world market must not be in question. All of these elements of the Washington Consensus, which resulted in hyperinflation in the 1990s, have been adopted as key elements of government policy.

In the ten years, in which there has been a shift to the left in Latin American politics, there have been significant improvements in the socio-economic sphere. The poverty rate has decreased from 48 per cent of the total population to 36 percent. 11 million families in Brazil receive direct aid as a result of the Bolsa Familia Programme. In 2003 only 3.6 million families were receiving this kind of assistance. There have also been improvements in the distribution of wages in many Latin American countries.

However, these changes have happened in line with the export booms, which started in 2003. This has increased the country's revenue, however, at the same time the proportion of revenue used for social expenditure has been insignificant or has only seen a minimal increase. Taxes, at 20 percent, could therefore be considered to be low in comparison to the total budget. Meanwhile, the tax structure in some countries, for example Brazil, is still too regressive. There are also many countries, which subsidise middle-class consumption, a policy which reduces investment opportunities in countries with weak economic infrastructure. It seems clear that as s result of the above, social democracy in Latin America has potential for the first time. It now depends on how left wing groups choose to utilise this opportunity.

 

Ivan A. Hadar - National Project Coordinator.